I think they are testing the market at this point, falling prices, price jump, price drop, I have an inkling we haven't seen them stabilize just yet. Probably just saw a massive drop in sales after recent Hikes.

Personally I think they should have been focusing on releasing a couple of revised lenses with better performance like the 16-50 and setting the new prices as they introduced the replacements.

I'd think that if they'd thought any price changes through well and then implemented them equally as well, they would've gone mostly unnoticed. Incremental changes over longer stretches of time is what comes to my mind. That certainly was not the case. I'm really curious to know what the used market was like during this time. Did many people take the opportunity to try to sell their lenses at a profitable or break even price, and were they successful at doing so? I know it crossed my mind that I should have done some lens "speculating" and turned a profit on a couple lenses, the DA* 60-250 and DFA 100 looking to have been two of the more potentially lucrative ones.

It looks like they are somewhere in between the pre-increase prices and the old unilateral prices.

Was that the plan all along?

Make an increase of prices appear like drop in prices (by using silly high prices inbetween)?

They raised the price of the FA 77/1.8 but not that of the FA 31/1.8?

I think such price games are fundamentally wrong.

Imagine a poor sod that bought the 50-135/2.8 for $1599.95 only to discover a few weeks later that it can now be had for $999.95. Is that how Ned Bunnell wants to "raise the perceived value" of Pentax lenses?

P.S.: Thumbs up, Adam, for posting the table including the old prices!

Is need to we won't buy those lens until they returning to the normality. I waiting the 850 of 50-135 lens.... and the full frame, when pentax when richoooo.

I'm soo angry...

I waiting a few month more to look the strategia of pentax-richo and if still go like this I sell my pentax equipment and buy a nikon 800d
pentax k5 drop to 910 aprox and the lens still up
Is crazy...why why

Thanks for the space in the forum.

Last edited by Martincito; 06-09-2012 at 12:47 AM.
Reason: more information

Make an increase of prices appear like drop in prices (by using silly high prices inbetween)?

They raised the price of the FA 77/1.8 but not that of the FA 31/1.8?

I think such price games are fundamentally wrong.

Imagine a poor sod that bought the 50-135/2.8 for $1599.95 only to discover a few weeks later that it can now be had for $999.95. Is that how Ned Bunnell wants to "raise the perceived value" of Pentax lenses?

P.S.: Thumbs up, Adam, for posting the table including the old prices!

What about the dozens of DA15mm that were sold used for $550, which now can be acquired new for the same price. Yeah, Pentax really made a sucker out of a lot of people.

Pentaxians at their best. "Those heartless monsters dared to lower the prices!"

I don't think it is quite like that.

I think what gets people is that they implemented a pricing strategy that put huge increases on both new and used lenses for a couple of months. People were selling used lenses for (in some cases) more than what they originally purchased them for. And unfortunately for those that bought second hand during this period, they paid equivalent prices of new in the months before and the months after. I wasn't personally affected by this but I can see how people would be annoyed.

Personally I think this current pricing is generally pretty good for what your getting (with a couple of exceptions). The way they achieved it though, was not the most user friendly.